JAY A. BLUM v. PERRY

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

JAY A. BLUM and A.B. (a minor ) child), ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) CV419-291 ) SALLY HORTAN PERRY, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Plaintiff Jay A. Blum and his minor son, A.B., bring this suit alleging multiple causes of action related to psychiatric and behavioral modification services provided to A.B. by the various defendants. Doc. 1. As no representative had appeared on behalf of A.B, the Court ordered the plaintiffs to show cause as to why A.B. should not be dismissed from this case. Doc. 12. In response, plaintiffs have identified Dr. Sheri Stein- Blum as A.B.’s legal guardian and next friend. Docs. 14 & 15. However, Dr. Stein-Blum is not a suitable representative for purposes of this matter. Federal procedures permit a “next friend” or guardian ad litem to represent and protect the interests of a minor party who lacks a duly appointed representative. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(1). The representative, however, must be competent to provide adequate legal representation. See 43 C.J.S. INFANTS § 416, fn. 1 (2019) (“To maintain

suit in federal court, a child or mental incompetent must be represented by a competent adult.”). More clearly stated, the representative must be

an attorney or someone possessing similar training allowing them to competently protect the interests of the minor while navigating the legal and procedural requirements of litigation. (“[I]t is not in the interests of

minors or incompetents that they be represented by non-attorneys. Where they have claims that require adjudication, they are entitled to trained legal assistance so their rights may be fully protected.”).

Plaintiffs have not claimed that Dr. Stein-Blum is an attorney or has any legal training. In fact, her personal website promotes her as a speech-pathologist and educator. Though these are laudable talents,

they do not provide the necessary competency in law to represent the rights and interests of a minor child in a legal proceeding. As such, the Court will AFFORD plaintiffs one more opportunity

to arrange suitable representation for A.B. Within 14 days of this Order, plaintiffs shall notify the Court that counsel has been retained or file a motion requesting the appointment of counsel.! Failure to abide by this Order will result in a recommendation that A.B. be dismissed from this

case. SO ORDERED, this 17th day of December, 2019.

Anighe~d. (ed. CHRISTOPHER L. RAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

1 The Court may appoint counsel in civil cases; however, such appointment is a “privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances, such as where the facts and legal issues are so novel or complex as to require the assistance of a trained practitioner.” Fowler v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1088, 1096 (11th Cir. 1990) (citing Poole v. Lambert, 819 F.2d 1025, 1028 (11th Cir. 1987), and Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1985)). Any motion by plaintiffs seeking the appointment of counsel will not necessarily be granted.